Choice of Law in Property The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina must be reversed, and the cause

198 U.S. 215 (1905) – Harris v. Balk remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.
Peckham, J.
OTHER NOTES
Harris and Balk are both North Carolina domiciliaries. Harris owed Balk $180. Harris, while
temporarily in Maryland was garnished by Balk’s creditor, Epstein. Judgement was entered
and the debt paid. Balk sued Harris in North Carolina for his debt. Harris set up the Maryland DIGESTER: Sophia Sy
judgement but the North Carolina court ruled against him stating that Maryland had no
jurisdiction as the situs of the debt was North Carolina. US SC reversed the said court,
holding that the Maryland judgement was valid and must be recognized as payment.

DOCTRINE
Power over the person of the garnishee confers jurisdiction on the courts of the state where
the writ issues. The obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to him wherever he goes.

FACTS
1. Harris owed Balk $180. They are both domiciliaries of North Carolina.
2. Balk owed more than $300 to Epstein who lives in Baltimore, Maryland.
3. Harris, while in Baltimore to buy merchandise, was served by Epstein with a writ
attaching the debt w/c Harris owed Balk. Judgement was entered according to Maryland
practice and Harris paid the $180.
4. In North Carolina, Balk sued Harris for the $180. Harris pleaded that the Maryland
judgement was valid and entitled to full faith and credit.
5. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled in favor of Balk holding that Maryland had
no jurisdiction because the situs of the debt is in North Carolina and Harris was but
temporarily in the state.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N the judgement in Maryland against Harris was valid? YES.
 If there be a law of the State providing for the attachment of the debt, and the
garnishee is found in that State, and process be personally served upon him, the
court thereby acquires jurisdiction and can garnish the debt due from him to the
debtor of the plaintiff.
 Jurisdiciton vel non cannot be made to depend upon the so called original situs of
the debt or upon the character of the stay of the garnishee in the state where the
attachment was issued.
 Power over the person of the garnishee confers jurisdiction on the courts of the
state where the writ issues.
o The obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to him wherever he goes.
o Possession cannot be taken of a debt or of the obligation to pay it. Notice to
the debtor (garnishee) f the commencement of the suit and notice not to pay
his creditor is all that can be given.
 It appears that the municipal law of Maryland permits the debtor of the principal
debtor to be garnished. Thus the judgment against Harris in Maryland was a valid
judgement because the court had jurisdiction over the garnishee by personal
service of process within the state.
 Also, the payment by Harris to Epstein was under legal compulsion, he had no
defense to set up against the attachment of the debt. It cannot be considered
voluntary payment.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
1